AS THE WORLD BURNS

Ryan Liza has a great article in the New Yorker up on their site right now. It details the rise and fall of last year's Kerry-Graham-Lieberman Climate Change bill that President Obama had promise he would find the votes to get.

If you are unaware of the background, basically the three senators put together an ok climate change bill (had a lot of bad things in it, some good) that was going to eventually be reconciled with the House's Waxman-Markey bill passed a year earlier. The significance of this was it would be the first climate change bill ever passed, that it would begin to address what I think is arguably our biggest threat, and that would give the President more negotiating power to bring to the next climate summit (in Mexico.)

But things went down hill. The bill became watered down and then eventually lost one of its co-sponsors, Lindsay Graham, after Harry Reid declared that the Senate would tackle immigration reform before climate change (they did neither.) Graham said thats a bullshit move; it helps Harry Reid's re-election but makes Graham look bad. Kerry and Lieberman went searching for other Republican votes, which were of course elusive, and the bill faded away.

The article sheds more light on other reasons the bill failed. The Obama Administration was not really co-operating at all. They repeatedly announced give aways to the Republicans (ie off-shore drilling) that KLG had planned to give in negotiations so the Republicans would have to concede something. It also seemed some leaks were being done to undermine Lindsay Graham.

The bill wasnt that great to begin with, but not having it was unfortunate. It remains to be seen if the Obama Administration will have the balls to regulate carbon emissions via the EPA instead of legislation. But I think it sheds light on their hands off attitude, and aloofness, ended up hurting the bill. Another strike against Obama.

Good Reading

Two good articles that I've read recently. One was Matt Taibbi's excellent (per usual) writing in Rolling Stone, this time on the Tea Party. Taibbi does a good job in not simply denigrating tea partiers to racist hicks, but trying to understand the underlying forces behind them (aside from the Koch Brothers.)

You look into the eyes of these people when you talk to them and they genuinely don't see what the problem is. It's no use explaining that while nobody likes the idea of having to get the government to tell restaurant owners how to act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the tool Americans were forced to use to end a monstrous system of apartheid that for 100 years was the shame of the entire Western world. But all that history is not real to Tea Partiers; what's real to them is the implication in your question that they're racists, and to them that is the outrage, and it's an outrage that binds them together. They want desperately to believe in the one-size-fits-all, no-government theology of Rand Paul because it's so easy to understand. At times, their desire to withdraw from the brutally complex global economic system that is an irrevocable fact of our modern life and get back to a simpler world that no longer exists is so intense, it breaks your heart.

I will post a full review tomorrow, along with a review on Ryan Lizza's article in the New Yorker on the Senate Climate Change bill (and how it all went wrong.)

Infrastructure Initiative

The New York Times this morning is reporting that the Obama Administration is going to propose a vast infrastructure project that will call for

as $50 billion in government spending to start up a long-term public works plan emphasizing transportation projects – roads, rail and airport runways – over the next six years.

It further reports that this will be just a piece of his larger economic vision to be laid out at a speech in Cleveland tomorrow. Which is good, because I was under the impression that his Cleveland speech was going to just be about a Research Tax Credit.

In any case, the initial reports of his infrastructure project, which includes an Infrastructure Bank, seem to be quite good (including building vast new stretches of rail.) I just hope the Administration, long known for not getting it, gets it. This will not pass. It may pass the House, though thats iffy because the House is in a tight battle for which party will control it and wavering Democrats will not wish to add one ounce to the deficit; but either way it will be filibustered in the Senate. Or it will be threatened to be filibustered and that will mean it wont even be brought up for a vote.

So if the Administration gets it, they will see to it that they make the aims of this bill known (and by that I mean they emphasize not the infrastructure part but the Jobs, Jobs, Jobs it will create) then move heaven and earth to emphasize and overemphasize the Republicans blocking it.

Because this is unlikely to pass (though I think it is much needed) the only way this can be used for a win is to present the case, the narrative, to the electorate that the Obama Administration has a great jobs bill, one that will rebuild America, and the Republicans are blocking it. They should call it a jobs bill and not an infrastructure bill. The Republicans are on message in that everything they say is Jobs Jobs Jobs, for some reason the Democrats are not. That is all the American public cares about at this point, even more than the deficit.

So if the Obama Administration can define this as a jobs bill, and can shine a light on Republican obstruction, which always goes without attention, then it can be a winner. But I have lost all faith in this Administration and predict this goes no where.

Econmetrix

taking a cue from Krugman i was looking at back data on US treasury yields, since everyone is obsessed with an immediate need to cut the deficit;

Ten years ago we were looking at 6.58% on the 10yr, 6.94% on the twenty yr, 6.61 % on the 30 yr

Twenty years ago, 7.98 % 10yr, 20 yr N/A, 8% on the 30 yr

Here are what those yields were as of yesterday: 2.97% on the 10 yr, 3.75% on the 20yr, 3.91% on the 30yr

Short term is even better, in 1990 the 3 yr bond was 7.9%, ten years ago it was 6.43%, today...1.00%. Investors are willing to take on US debt for 1% return.

Meanwhile the consumer price index shows us down 0.2% month over month.

Long term unemployment at record highs, investors jumping over each other to buy US debt that offers barely any returns, and the specter of deflation begins to take hold. im no econometrist, but are those pressing calls for fiscal contraction? a need to cut back spending and reduce short term deficits?

the icing on the cake will be when obama's deficit commission releases its report after the elections and announces an immediate need to slash social security, with its trust fund overflowing with surplus at the moment, or we will see the end of america as we know it.

on a last note I was going over polling on the issue of debt. its a huge concern with voters, except when offered to rank it against "jobs" or "job creation" at which point it pales in comparison. bring on the republican majority

Liberal NYT

Glenn Greenwald highlights a media study by Harvard that studies 4 major papers (NYT, LA Times, USA Today, WSJ) and examines how they have treated the subject of "waterboarding" over the last 100 years.

The so-called liberal (to the point of treason) New York Times, in 54 articles that spoke of waterboarding between 1930s and 2004 characterized it as torture 81.5% of the time, 96.3% of the time for the LA Times.

From 2002-2008, "the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture. The New York Ties called water boarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 out of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63)"

For the WSJ it was 1.6%, for USA Today zero.

2002 is of course when the Bush Administration began using waterboarding on its prisoners in Guantanamo, later to become public and unabashedly defended by the Bush people. The Bush Admin declared that waterboarding was not torture. Suddenly the newspapers, the free (liberal) press, stopped referring to it as torture. As far as I can see, they did this because Bush said so.

Monday Morning

News broke just before midnight last night that Elena Kagan would be Obama's nominee to the US Supreme Court.

I assume this is the administration leaking it before announcing it in order to control the news cycle. Either way I am in agreement with Glen Greenwald and his very good summaries on why she should not be the nominee. Yet another great missed opportunity.

I suspect the Republicans will bloody her up as best they can, paint her as a radical, and highlight her having done some work for Goldman Sachs

Then probably confirm her. But still, I would've preferred Diane Wood.

In other news, the EU has quite a big bailout package. Should help those French and German banks holding all that Greek debt.

The Legal Debate about that efin Mandate

Listening to the House debate HCR as I type away at a paper due tomorrow and heard Nathan Deal (R-Georgia) say when he becomes governor of Georgia he will challenge the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" in the health care bill (I assume directing the Georgia AG to sue?)

As this seems to be a big thing among Republicans, that its unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate individual citizens to purchase anything (Orrin Hatch and some others had an op-ed in the WSJ about this) its struck me that there is an easy way around the Constitutionality of it.

The government could simply announce a "health care tax" or "health care fee" on all Americans then give a tax credit of the same amount to all Americans who have health insurance. The effect of this is that every American who doesn't have health insurance (but can easily afford it) will pay a small fee; exactly the same thing that would happen with this mandate. Its completely Constitutional, there are tax credits for everything under the sun and tax credits as a concept are used in large part to create incentives to certain types of behavior; ie a tax credit to "retrofit" your home for energy efficiency.

So its basically the same thing; and depending on the language in the bill may be the same thing. Either way it can be interpreted as the same thing on a legal basis and therefore could hold up as Constitutional depending on the judge/justices. I say that because justices on all sides of the spectrum allow their biases to affect how they rule and might find legality (or illegality) in vague language depending on what they personally prefer the outcome to be; even if it goes against legal logic/precedents you've argued for for many years (see Scalia, Atonin in Bush v. Gore.)

CBO Scores Final Bill

And its good!

I dont care what anyone says, I like Nancy Pelosi. I think she pulled this off well. There was a dearth of leadership and she stepped up. I also give serious credit to Harry Reid who had to deal with a nightmare of people in the Senate. The biggest disappointment was President Obama, who was such a failure on so many levels its worth considering whether he deserves to get my vote in 2012 (if I am in a blue state.)

For the Record

I think the House passing Health Care via Self-Executing or whatever the hell its called is... awesome

Harold Ford needs to just shut the fuck up.

And the New York Times needs to stop giving him print space.

Harold considered running for the New York senate because he moved here from TN a couple of years ago in order to work for Wall Street. He fancied running to the right of Kristen Gilibrand, President Obama and the New York Democratic Party, in the New York Democratic Party Primary.

He was so incompetent in his exploratory stage that he shot himself in the foot in interviews talking about being driven around in a town car, helicoptering over Staten Island and sudden revelations on being gung ho about gays.

He never stood a chance and everyone knew this, apparently even he because he never entered the race. But after a NYT Op-Ed a few months back talking about why he think he might run, now he has one saying he thinks he might not run now. Who cares? Why are you getting op-eds in the NYT about non-existent hopeless campaigns?

Oye vey.

Gym

There is a guy at my gym who is always on his cell phone, and is really loud. This is usually between 7-9am. Who is he always talking to at 8am? Why is he so loud? What the hell is wrong with him?

It really annoys me. I needed to get that out

Schlitz!

http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/massmarkets/2009/10/21/schlitz-brings-its-old-more-full-flavored-formula-back-to-the-boston-market/

Apparently Schlitz used to be delicious beer, but "fell victim to the industry trend in the 1970s when breweries accelerated the brewing process and used cheaper ingredients – all with the goal of cutting costs." Which I am guessing is part of the reason so many American beers suck.

But in a sign of good times to come, Schlitz decided to go back to the old formula it used from decades back. However, like NASA's moon plans, the original recipe had been lost and/or destroyed. Hope was ebbing as people worried they may never again taste the delicious 60's Schlitz.



But fear not. "Schlitz brewmaster Bob Newman needed to interview people who were Schlitz brewers back in the day to re-create the formula: “He literally sat for hours on the phone, talking to these guys.”"

Now its back baby.

So the new Schlitz is the old Schlitz, and it’s being rolled out in locations in Boston and other watering holes in Eastern Massachusetts. Wortham says the price will be comparable to Bud (an actual increase, believe it or not, from the bargain-basement prices that Schlitz used to sell for). A ceremonial delivery is planned for Thursday at 4 p.m. at the Eire Pub in Dorchester to herald the formula’s return to the Boston market.

Slow Day at the Globe

Springfield or Boston?

Vikki Backs Kirk?

Boston Globe reports that Vicki Kennedy, along with Patrick and Joe, have expressed support for Paul Kirk (Kennedy "family friend", former DNC, oversees JFK Library) for late Sen Kennedy's seat.

Meanwhile Huffington Post reports, going off a Fox News scoop, that Patrick has chosen Paul Kirk.

It leads me to believe that Governor Patrick's office may have intentionally leaked the news that Vicki Kennedy wants Kirk (the lead headline on the Globe's website for more than an hour is "Victoria Kennedy Backs Kirk"). Thus the people of the Commonwealth can sit on this for a while and let it saturate into the news; perhaps a day or two ahead of Gov Patrick actually making the appointment.

Why ? My guess is because a string of governors (Blagojavich, Paterson) have fumbled with Senate appointments and Patrick, with low approval numbers and an election next year, wants to avoid any misteps. So let the people of Massachusetts first know that Vicki Kennedy, who is immensely popular and adored and a close connection to the late Ted, prefers Kirk. Then a day or two later when Patrick appoints Kirk it is seen as being done with the blessing of the beloved Vicki, so everyone (minus angry Republicans) is happy and can focus on other things.

How is this man not more popular?

From the NYT CityRoom:

Gov. David A. Paterson showed up to a meeting of state leaders meeting on Wednesday morning determined to trim the budget, but there was one immediate trim that everyone noticed: his mustache.

...It remains to be seen whether the clean-shaven look will improve the governor’s standing in the polls, or with President Obama and his administration.

...

The governor, answering questions after he met with state leaders to discuss the budget, was first asked what happened to his mustache.

“Additional deficit means additional cutting,” he said, “and it’s likely before the end of this process you will see me bald.”

He Did Act Stupidly

Was the arrest of Henry Gates Louis, Jr. by Cambridge police an act of racial profiling? That remains to be seen, and I think is actually not the crux of the case here.

The officer is speaking to Boston media outlets defending himself; it was noted that he performed CPR on Reggie Lewis once (performing CPR on a black person makes you not racist?) and taught a course on racial profiling.

I would be pissed if I were Professor Gates for getting hassled for walking into your own home. So his anger is understandable. And his belief that the thus-far anonymous phone call to the police about a black man breaking into a house was probably a case of racism.

But here is the core of it. Once it became clear that Professor Gates owned that house, that it was not breaking and entering, the police should have apologized and left. Instead, Gates was arrested for "disorderly conduct" because he was an asshole to a police office? That is inexcusable. The Cambridge police did act stupidly, as President Obama noted. Not to single out this specific incident or officer; but I'm sure many of us have experience with police officers who act like assholes or act above the law, and fuck with everyday citizens. Well this could have been an outstanding officer, as it has said, but arresting someone in their own home for yelling at you is wrong. Being an asshole is not a crime. If it was, Sgt Crowley would be in jail.

Similar sentiments at Thomas Jefferson St Blog

Bloats

Recent study shows in England that journalists/media workers are the biggest drinkers (by profession) "consuming the equivalent of more than four bottles of wine or more than 19 pints of beer a week, according to government research."

I'm not surprised; since the British are becoming more and more known for excessive drinking (most notably British tourists.) But is it excessive? I suppose if they are binge drinking, then it is. But if they are just enjoying wine with meals and a few beers after work, what's the problem with that? I am personally in favor of returning to the good old days of the three-martini lunch; which is almost a hark back to more leisurely days in this country (or so I heard).

prop 8

so it appears that the california supreme court will rule today on the validity of proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in california

and as someone who is a proponent of gay marriage, the case nonetheless represents an interesting gray area; as im not sure there is a strong case for overturning it since it was a statewide proposition. its one of those interesting cases in which you have a position (for gay marriage) but not sure whether the case itself has any legal grounding.

i guess the question would have to be the intricacies of the california legal system, which i am not familiar with. it seems to me that the original supreme court case which ruled gay marriage was legal was an interpretation of the state constitution; and for that to be overturned it would have to be done so via a constitutional amendment, not a voter proposition (in MA when gay marraige was ruled legal, the opposition went straight for a constituional amendment). But that seems a bit too easy so who knows. from what I read it looks like the supreme court isnt likely to overturn the proposition.

the silver lining if that happens is that, according to a recent study, Massachusetts has benefited enormously over the last five years (since gay marriage was rule legal) as huge swaths of what they call the "creative class" have flocked to the bay state and contributed substantially to our economy and culture. California might siphon that off from us and we dont want that.

Hot Day in Beantown

I had lunch today in the Public Gardens, which was nice. Its about 90 degrees outside, a fine day for the end of May.

I am finally done with the semester, and look forward to an enjoyable summer. I am working at ICI 20 hours a week and need a job to supplement that income. I also want to try to do more in and around Boston and get to know the city better. I also want to write more; both for the novel and the sitcom. And I have a secondary blog (to be posted) about trying something new every week here in Boston; with Renee doing the same in Chicago.

It is Thursday. That is all I can think of now.

Why Obama, why?

Paul Krugman blogs about the one sided debate in the media when it comes to the stimulus plan; that is to say, the media systematically excludes a specific view point (this being that the stimulus was too small) and overwhelms with people from the other side (it was too big). They did this with the Iraq War too

This can also be applied to advocates of a single payer health care plan (which most Americans support). According to FAIR “the views of advocates of single payer have only been aired five times in the hundreds of major newspaper, broadcasts and cable stories about healthcare reform over the past week. No single-payer advocate has appeared on a major TV broadcast or cable network to talk about the policy during that period.”

Also Max Baucus said with health care reform “all options are on the table” EXCEPT for single payer, taking the unusual step of specifically ruling that out. Lastly at the President’s health care summit, Obama refused to invite Rep John Conyers and Physicians for a National Health Program; both of whom advocate single payer, until they threatened to stage a protest outside the White House and finally received invitations at the last minute. The insurance companies had no such problems getting in.